Matt Slick Live

The following program is recorded content created by the Truth Network. It's Matt Slick live. Matt is the founder and president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, found online at KARM.org. When you have questions about Bible doctrines, turn to Matt Slick live.

Francis, taking your calls and responding to your questions at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. Alright everyone, welcome to the show. It's me, Matt Slick.

You should listen to Matt Slick live. I've got a little bit of a chest congestion and my apologies for that, but that's how it is sometimes. Hey, if you want to give me a call, all you've got to do is dial 877-207-2276 and I want to hear from you. If you don't want to call, but you want to contact me anyway, you can call me or just email me at info at KARM.org, info at KARM.org. Just put in the subject there, KARM radio or just radio question or radio comment, whatever it is, and we'll get to those. Alright, so we can do that right now too even, but hey, uh-oh, yawn.

Okay, sorry. Oh, it's kind of a half yawn that kind of came out there. You ever have one of those days, I was just talking to people about this, my wife and I both today, and then someone else I said, they said the same thing, one of those days where you can't seem to get enough rest.

You know, you just go, you take a nap and you're just, you're done and that's today. So, if I have another yawn coming out like that one right there, not my, I guess, I don't know if it's my fault or not, I'm yawning. I'm telling you on the air.

I always wonder how many people are yawning when I yawn on the air or even talk about yawning. Anyway, alright, hey, look, give me a call, 877-207-2276. And on Fridays, we also do some hate mail and we haven't gotten very much of that recently, but I do hope to be able to get some today. And let's just jump on the line and get to Charles from Ohio. Hey, Charles, welcome. You are on the air. Hi, Matt.

This is Charles. We spoke on Wednesday about preterism. We didn't really talk about it too much, but yeah. Uh-huh. We asked about this one first.

Yeah, so I just kind of wanted to pick up where we left off. Okay. But, you know, I'd like to get your, you know, ABC definition of the law in Matthew 5-18.

Yeah. Oh, that's right. Well, the law is used in different senses. It's generically all of what the Old Testament teaches.

It's also in reference to the first five books. The Jews went and collected 613 laws of the Old Testament and codified them that way. There's three divisions of the law. The judicial, you know, if you move the, you steal somebody's something, you know, you get punished. That's judicial. There's the priestly and how to do certain rules and regulations and things like that.

And also the moral. So there are different aspects of that law. So when it's talked about, just the law generally is talking about the whole of the Old Testament law. Okay. The entirety of the Mosaic law, correct?

Old Testament, not just Mosaic because there's other laws around in the Old Testament outside the Pentateuch. Okay. All right. You there?

So, yeah, I'm here. So when Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, you're saying he's talking about something outside the Mosaic law? No.

No, it depends on the context of how the word is used. But to fulfill the law, Jesus said in John 5, 39 that these scriptures were about him. And so in Matthew 24, no, Luke 24, 45, I believe it is, he talked to them about all that was written about him, the law, the prophets, and the Psalms. So he was dividing up the Old Testament there.

The entire Bible is about him. All right. And so it didn't come to abolish. But he devised it. Yes. He said it didn't come to abolish the law and the prophets.

And that's just the dual division. But the law is still standing out on its own. There's the law and the prophets.

What is that law? I keep telling you. So I'm confused now. I told you. Okay. So if we're talking entirety, I believe it's talking about the entirety of the Old Covenant, the Mosaic law that was given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

That's how I interpret that. And that's what he claimed to fulfill. Okay. Because Israel failed.

Right? Okay. So, you know, let's keep going with that. And so I'm just curious why you're stuck on this, why it's an issue.

I'm just curious what's going on. Because it's important. It's important that we get definitions. And we contextualize everything. Yes.

It's always important to know our definitions. And so when we're talking there in Matthew 5.17, the law and the prophets deals with the entire Old Testament. Okay.

That's even better. The Old Covenant. Okay. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say the Old Covenant.

I said, hold on, hold on. I didn't say Old Covenant. I said Old Testament. Okay. But generically it's the Old Covenant.

But there's different aspects of the Covenant. Okay. But go ahead. They're interchangeable.

Mostly, yes. Okay. So I asked you Wednesday, has heaven and earth passed away? And you said no.

So my question is, if heaven and earth... Wait. Hold on. Hold on. I cannot follow you. I missed one word.

What has passed away? The law? Is that what you said? I asked you Wednesday, has heaven and earth passed away? And you said no. That's correct.

It's not remade yet. Okay. So in Matthew 5.17 through 18, Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, but not the smallest letter of the law. Okay.

Will pass away. So if that's the case, by your logic, the law is still in effect. You know, I'm curious to know what you're trying to do, because you keep saying things as though you have a goal, but you're not telling me what the goal is. It's like you're trying to trap me on something, and I keep trying to help define things. I am.

And then you go a different direction. I am. So why don't you just get to it instead of beating around the bush here, okay? Okay. So basically I don't believe heaven and earth is referring to a political cosmos in planet earth. I believe it's referring to the old covenant.

And so when he means heaven and earth will pass away, he's referring that the old covenant will pass away, and the law will not pass away until all has been accomplished. Okay. What do you do with 2 Peter 3.10, but the day of the Lord has come like a thief in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will... Let me finish reading it.

Dude. Look. I know what it says. Well, is it okay with you on my own radio show if I finish reading the verse so that others can know what the verse says without being interrupted?

Is it okay? Sure. Okay.

Let's try it again. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. So what does that mean? Stokia, the Greek word stokia. Okay.

Great. That didn't answer the question. So what does it mean when it says here that the heavens will pass away, they'll be destroyed with intense heat, the elements themselves will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. What does it mean? Does it mean the heavens and the earth are not going to be changed? That's talking about the old covenant system under old covenant Israel, which was encapsulated within the temple, and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Okay. So when it says the day of the Lord will come like a thief in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, the elements being destroyed with intense heat refers to what in the law?

Are you there? I don't understand the question. Well, maybe it's because your theology is a little askew and the question doesn't fit it so you can't comprehend the question. Or maybe you need to clarify it. Well, maybe I read the verse to you. You said you already know what the verse says.

I asked you where I read out of the verse, and then you're confused. Okay. So it says the elements will be destroyed with intense heat. What does it mean that the elements will be destroyed with intense heat?

What does it mean? The old covenant, the temple. Okay.

So the elements will be destroyed with intense heat is the old covenant temple? Yes. Okay. Can you show me, aside from just your interpretation, can you show me any place in scripture that would support that, if that's what it means? Matthew 24, Mark 13, Book 21.

Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Don't go Matthew 24, Mark 13. Okay. I thought you were saying, well, the Bible. You had to give me an exact something.

Matthew 24 what? I just did. I gave you the Olivet Discourse. Okay.

Look, look, you're not able to argue very well so far. I'm trying to tell you, okay, that if you're going to make a statement, you need to go exactly to the verse, and you say this right here means this, and this is why. Now, I asked you about 2 Peter 3, 10, and you just gave me an opinion. All right. You're entitled to your opinion. But I'm asking you to show me from scripture where that interpretation of that section of scripture is already talked about or alludes to it.

You haven't been able to do that. Okay. So in the Olivet Discourse, they went out of the temple. Wow. And they said, Jesus, do you not see these beautiful buildings? And Jesus says, I tell you, not one stone will be left upon another that will not be torn down.

Yes. And what's that got to do with the elements being destroyed with intense heat? Because I'm telling you that's referring to the temple.

That's referring to the old covenant system. It was coming to an end. Okay. So this is your interpretation. I'm asking you to substantiate that.

So where is it? I just did. No, you did not. The stones being thrown down is not the same thing as elements being destroyed with intense heat.

Okay. I've actually seen those stones. I've been to Jerusalem. That's the other thing you're omitted.

That's the other thing you're omitted. He said it would be destroyed with fire. Hold on. And so I have been to Jerusalem. I've seen those stones that Jesus talked about. I've seen them. Okay. They're thrown down. Looked at them. There they are. Now, it says here, the heavens will pass away with a roar. That's humongous sound.

And the elements will be destroyed with intense heat. And that is, to you, that's the stones being thrown down? Yes, because you don't take the Bible and have a wooded interpretation. And that's what you have. Look, you can give an excuse, but you haven't established that this means that. You're just saying it. That's all you're doing is saying it. It doesn't mean a thing. Okay. You haven't substantiated. It's no different than any other verses where it talks about the sky falling, the moon turning into blood, the sun being darkened, the stars falling from the sky.

Every time that kind of language is used in the Old Testament, it's referring to a common judgment on a nation or a city. And this is no different than 2 Peter 3. Okay. Oh, it's no different. Okay, see. All right.

Let's see how well you do with just a basic thing. This is Acts 1, 9-11. Now, you teach that Jesus returned in 70 AD, right, in the armies of Rome. Correct.

Okay. So, after he had said these things, he was lifted up while they're looking on, and the cloud received him out of their sight. So, this is Acts 1, 9. So, Jesus went up into the sky, right, where the cloud was, right? Yeah. Is that what it says?

Okay. And as they were gazing intently into the sky, that's because he went up into the clouds, into the sky, two men were standing beside them. The man of Galilee, why do you continue looking up in the sky? This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven will come in just the same way as you watch him go into heaven. So, isn't the prophecy of the angels that he will return from the sky, that's how he'll do it?

Is that what happened in 70 AD? Actually, the Greek says in like manner, and the emphasis was on the cloud. He would come on the clouds of heaven, which he did come on the clouds of heaven. So, he came on the clouds. So, when it says he went up into heaven, that's exactly how he ascended vertically into heaven.

There's a cloud up in the sky. This is how he's going to return back. Is that what happened in 70 AD? Tell you what.

Jesus himself said he was coming on the clouds of heaven. You can't answer a direct question, can you? We'll be right back after the break. Hold on. I did.

No, you didn't. We'll be right back after these messages, and we'll expose more of this guy's false teaching a little bit, and we'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, everybody. Welcome back to the show, and I was hoping that he'd be still on there. I guess he dropped out. Darn. I was hoping he'd still be there because I was going to prove him wrong.

It's pretty easy to do. In fact, what I'm going to do is show folks. I'll explain a couple of things, and I'll show you why it's false. Full preterism is the view that Jesus returned. The return of Christ that he prophesied when he comes back was in 70 AD when the armies of Rome came in. That's how Jesus returned.

What I did was I went through Acts 1 9-11 and showed where the prophecy is. He went up into the clouds of the sky. I was going to ask him, what kind of a cloud is it when it says looking up into the heavens? That has to be the water vapor kind of cloud. What he did was like a great cloud of witnesses, that kind of a thing. He didn't use that, but it's that kind of idea where the cloud now has a different meaning in a different place, and he'll transfer it over.

It's called illegitimate totality transverse and exegetical error. What I was going to do was go to 1 Thessalonians 4 16. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, with the trumpet of God, that the dead in Christ will rise first, and we who are alive and remain will be caught up together in the clouds to meet him in the air. I was going to ask him, what kind of cloud is that?

A water vapor cloud? Or what is that? In 1 Thessalonians 4. It had been interesting to find out what kind of exegetical gymnastics he was going to use in order to just deny what the scriptures clearly teach. Full preterism is heretical, ladies and gentlemen. It is a false teaching.

I've known that with this guy with teaching. I was waiting to get to it for your entertainment value, but he bailed. Let's get to Herb from Raleigh, North Carolina. Welcome, buddy. You're on the air. Hey, man.

Good to talk to you. I hope I can ask this question in a simple way and say it correctly. It's my understanding that originally you said the Lord came for the Jew, his chosen people. Yes. And some things changed during that time, which is why he then allowed like Gentiles or ourselves to be also to be saved.

Right. The question is, had that not occurred the way it did, his original plan, what do you think would have happened to us who would be on the earth today if he only came and took the chosen people and everything worked out? What would have happened to us? It's a good question I don't know because before Moses and the covenant existed, God had prophesied to Abraham in Genesis 12, 3, and you all the nations shall be blessed. So before the covenant was instituted, the Mosaic covenant with the Ten Commandments, and then the covenant that went into Israel. So we have kind of a problem here because to answer it, to say, well, what would have happened if it didn't happen is like saying, what if God had just not done it that way but done it something in a different way?

Well, he didn't. And so it's a tough one. But if we were to just kind of play with it a little bit, if Israel had not rejected the Messiah, what would have happened to the Gentiles? Well, I believe that there would have been a modification of some sort of some way for us Gentiles to have entered into that Mosaic covenant to be justified.

Yeah. It would have probably, but it still is even then by faith. So it's really kind of an extreme problem. And Matt, if that was allowed to happen, but if it didn't, I guess a lot of it is what if, I guess, is the problem. But if it did not, okay, God knows everything. So his plan was it was going to be the Jews. But then the Jews rejected him, which he knew was going to happen.

So, I mean, here's another angle maybe. Could that have meant he just went ahead and created the Gentiles knowing that the Jews first were going to reject them? And then I say, I'll still go ahead and accept that, you know, the non-Jews. All right. There's a yes and a no to that. Because I want to be careful how I address this issue with you and others.

Yeah. The ordination of their denial of the Messiah was something wrought by the hand of God. So God is the one who ordained that they would reject the Messiah. Now, when we say that, we're not saying that he made them and he got them in a headlock and covered their ears so they couldn't hear the covenant and they pushed them down a hill and threw rocks at them, you know, and then blamed them for that. That's not the kind of thing we're talking about when we in the Reform camp say God ordains.

Because the ordination can be by direct and indirect means. We also get into what's called ultimate proximate and efficient cause. So efficient causation, for example, is the issue of Adam. He is the one who is the efficient cause of his own sin. No one forced him. He did it on his own. He ate the fruit.

He should not have. The proximate cause is God putting Adam and Eve in the garden, putting the garden there, putting them in the garden, and allowing the devil to come in. God allowed all this stuff. And so God is the proximate cause but not the efficient cause. The efficient cause could not have occurred if the proximate cause was not in place. So God ordained the fall of Adam by arranging the proximate conditions by which he could make his free will choice. But it could not have occurred in that context if God had not brought the context about. So we would say that Adam is the efficient cause of his own sin but not God. So God is not culpable. But yet he is the proximate cause in that the situations that were there in which we exist are allowed to occur. So when we say this, we're talking about, well, could this have happened or that have happened? Well, the proximate conditions or the proximate situation by which the Jews rejected the Messiah are all there brought into existence by God.

Yet they are their own efficient cause in the rejection of the Messiah. So God ordained it in an approximate sense but not an efficient sense. This is how we would tackle this. Make sense?

Okay. Well, it just boggled my mind and I thought, I know you probably can explain it in a logical way, but I thought maybe I'm just looking at it wrong. But it just occurred to me having listened to you say this about originally the chosen people were the Jews, and I've always heard that all my life. But it just dawned on me, well, what about us? If things had turned out different, what would have created us to be here for if we're not going to be saved or not saved back? Right. Well, we're created for his glory and then we're chosen before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1, 4 and 5. So when we look at this, a lot of times what people do when they're talking about this, and I'd be very careful, I always say this because they don't want us to look down at anybody or say, hey, look at me, I got it figured out.

That's not it. But over the years of studying this and debating it and teaching it, I've learned incrementally, oh, that's right, look at this and look at that. Well, the thing is, one of the things that needs to be included in all these discussions is the absolute sovereignty of God who proclaimed everything to be before it was.

And how does that work? And, well, you know, so then it's like saying, well, could I have put a different shirt on today? Well, yes, in one sense, yes, and in another sense, no. It's actually a discussion that we've had in theological discussion, circles, apologetic circles, philosophy, Christian philosophy. Because like the man, what I've heard is the man who nailed the nail into Christ's wrist, could he have done differently? Yes and no. It just depends on how we want to look at it.

He's ordained to freely do it, so he couldn't have, but he could have, he had the potential, but he didn't. It gets complicated. That help? We've got a break. All right, buddy? Thank you so much, Matt. I appreciate it. It makes me feel better, and God bless you as always. You too, man. God bless.

Thanks. All right, hey, folks, we'll be right back after these messages. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276. Here's Matt Slick. All right, buddy, welcome back to the show, bottom of the hour. If you want to give me a call, 877-207-2276. Xavier, welcome. You're on the air.

Hello, Matt. How you doing? Doing all right, man. Hanging in there.

What do you got, buddy? I just wanted to know, do you need to be a Calvinist in order to make a problem? Absolutely not. Nope. Nope.

Nope. You can be an Arminian, Calvinist. The issue is not if you're a Calvinist or not. It's do you trust in Jesus Christ, God in flesh, who died on the cross, rose from the dead?

Do you trust in what he did on the cross? Anybody who would say that Calvinism is the gospel and it must be a Calvinist in order to be saved are just ignorant and shouldn't be speaking about that, okay? So why is it there are...

Thank you for that answer, by the way. So why is it that there are different denominations and what's the difference between the others? I know I try reading up on that on yourkarm.org, but I just wanted to get an understanding, like, what is the major differences that we need to be aware of?

Differences regarding what? Well, regarding the different denominations, because the Mormons, if I was to say, if I was to be a Mormon, would I go to heaven? No, you would not, because Mormonism is a non-Christian cult. It teaches that God is an exalted man from another planet, that Jesus is the brother of the devil, and that you have to do good works to have your sins forgiven. And each of those are absolutely false, okay? And then what about the oneness Pentecostals? Yeah, oneness Pentecostals deny the doctrine of the Trinity, and then they deny the true incarnation.

They say they don't, but I can show how they don't. And they add baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation, so they add works to salvation, so therefore, along with their denial of the true God, they're not Christian, okay? Catholics are not Christian, or official Roman Catholic theology is not Christian, because it teaches a false gospel. Okay, it does, a false gospel. Is that what Paul says when he says that they were with us, but they were not of us, so they left or something like that? Yeah, 1 John 2, 19, they were not from us because they never were of us.

If they had been of us, they would have remained. So, yeah, but it's a little bit different talking in the context of those in the anti-Christ arrival and things like that, and in times. But, see, the basics of the Christian faith are laid out in Scripture, and I've written an article on this, and you can go check it out, you know, what are the essential doctrines of the Christian faith? And they are not Calvinist or Arminian or Roman Catholic or anything. They're just biblical, like believing Jesus Christ as God in flesh.

I have all the references for it. His physical resurrection, justification by faith alone in Christ alone, believing in one God, the true, living God, things like that. And I've got them listed out, and they're cited with Scripture, what the Bible says, not my opinion. And so, you know, Arminians, I've got friends, I don't even know if they're Arminian or Calvinist because I don't even really care. And there's a guy I was just talking to, and we're talking about going to the Philippines and me doing some research. I think he's Reformed, you know, I think. But, I don't know, okay, so it's like whatever, you know. I've heard you also, I just want to clarify something. I heard you, and I've been watching a lot of your debates, different, you know, one is Pentecostal and atheist, and different other people, and I can't remember which name of this person you had a debate with, but you said that if you openly deny the Trinity, you're not a Christian.

I'm not sure if I'm quoting you correctly. Yeah, generally what I say something like that is, if you knowledgably, openly, continually reject the doctrine of the Trinity, then I doubt your salvation. Okay, that's what I will say. Because if a person says that I declare ignorance, that I don't really understand the Trinity, I'm not saying that I don't accept it.

Yeah, that's different. Because people can just not understand it and just not be aware of it, that's no big deal. That's why those who openly knowingly deny it, then I say, I can't call you a brother or sister.

It might be the case that they have true faith, but they could still be in great error, and saying that they reject it, not realizing what's really going on. So there's no possibility, I'm trying to be as gracious as possible. But, you know, so openly knowingly, like one is Pentecostal people who I debate, they know what they're talking about, then I can't call them brothers and sisters. Okay. Well, Matt, I appreciate your time and thank you for answering my questions.

I feel like this has helped me out a little more than what I came up with. You know, I have been reading most of your articles and listening to a lot of your debates, and it has helped me in my faith in understanding the differences. Well, do you affirm the Trinity, for example? Do you affirm it? I affirm it to a certain extent because I don't understand it completely. Yeah, that's okay.

Yeah, same here, don't understand it. I know what the Bible teaches, and I accept what it teaches, as far as me comprehending how it all works. I don't get that, but I know what it teaches, and I believe what it teaches.

Yeah, that's okay. Well, when I first heard about the Trinity, I was confused because when you say persons, when I think about a person, I'm a person, you're a person. Right. To me, that's two different people.

So when you say person, God, Father, the person Jesus, and the person, the Holy Spirit, I think of three persons, which is three gods, because you say they're all gods. Right. And that's where I was conflating and confusing it because that's why I'm like, I don't really understand it. Right. I've been reading all your articles, and I have more understanding of it. That's not what it is.

I believe there's one God. It's just three distinct persons, which that's why I'm kind of understanding them. Right. It doesn't have anything to do with persons the way you and I think.

It has to do with the theological significance of its use in its context, in a different context, a different way. That's what's going on. Right.

It's different. Yes. Okay. Well, good. Well, thank you so much for your time. You're welcome so much. No problem at all. I appreciate it. Anyway, thank you for all you're doing. God bless you. Sure. No problem, man. God bless you, Savior.

All right. Now, let's get to Joe from Raleigh. Joe, welcome. You are on the air. Hi. How are you doing?

I want to hang in the air. It's all right. So, what do you got, man?

One was, you were talking to the gentleman earlier about Jesus coming in the clouds in 70 AD. Yeah. Yeah. Beyond that, yes. Oh, okay. He's on that?

Yeah. He called back. He got disconnected. He'll call back.

So, we'll get to him. Well, maybe. Sorry. I was going to make a humorous remark that I think is humorous anyway. Sure.

Basically, the one thing I'm concerned about is that since the guy seems to me to be like a cloud dweller, and he might have first-hand predation on that. So, I'm glad. Yeah. Got you. Yeah. It's a bad view.

It's a bad view. Yeah. It is.

Yeah. Also, I think when Jesus is talking about not one bit of the law will be erased or taken away, it means that he's the fulfillment of all of it. That's what it means. So, that's what I think it means, and that makes much more sense than it being some kind of weird trap door leading to another trap door.

I don't think God wants us to do those kind of mental gymnastics, really. So, anyway, have a good evening. Thanks for all you're doing. You too, man.

Well, God bless. All right. All right.

You too. Okay. All right. Let's get back on with Charles.

We've got two minutes before the break. Okay. Charles, you're back on. Yeah.

We mysteriously got disconnected when he went on break, so. Okay. So, I've got some questions for you, okay, because I'm going to prove to you that you're wrong. Sure.

Good luck. Oh, it's easy. I can prove it, but proof is different than persuasion. So, you already admitted in Acts 1, 9 to 11 when Jesus received him, when it went up into the clouds, that that's the cloud in the sky, the kind with water vapor, right? Are you there? I'm just, we're referring. We're reviewing. Is that correct?

Right? The water vapor kind of cloud up in the sky is where he went in Acts 1, 9 to 11, right? Yes. Okay. And then, so, that's a cloud is in the sky. That's where the air is, right? No problem.

All right. So, it says in 1 Thessalonians 4, he'll descend from heaven with a trumpet, et cetera. Verse 17, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together in the clouds to meet him in the air. What kind of cloud is that when it says we'll meet him in the air? Same cloud. So, it's a water vapor cloud. So, this is how it says Jesus is going to descend from the clouds with that, and we're going to go out there and meet him in those clouds in the air. Do you agree?

No. Well, then, why do you not believe what it says? Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds. Listen to the verse.

See, you have a problem hearing scripture because you submit it to your own understanding. We've got a break. We'll be right back. Okay. Don't hold.

Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back, folks. We're going to battle it out.

Like I said, proof is different than persuasion, and you'll see that truth here in a second. We'll be right back. It's Matt Slick live, taking your calls at 877-207-2276.

Here's Matt Slick. Yes. Welcome back, everybody. We're last break, last segment of the hour. Let's get back with Charlie.

Are you still there? Charles? Yes, sir.

All right. So, you admitted in Acts 1, 9 through 11 that he went up into the clouds, into the sky. That's the water vapor kind of cloud. And then when it says in 1 Thessalonians 4, 17 about the return of Christ, because that's what the angels in Acts 1, 9 said, this is how he's going to come back. And then it says then, when he healed the son from heaven with a shout, the voice of the archangel, trumpet of God, dead in Christ will rise first. That's how he says he's going to come back from heaven. And we'll be caught up with them in the clouds to meet them in the air. And the clouds, of course, is the water vapor kind. So, how is that what happened in 70 AD?

Sure. So 1 Thessalonians 4 is the parasea of Christ, okay? So the parasea is linked with the resurrection of the dead. And Daniel chapter 12, verses 1 through 2, Daniel links the resurrection at the time of the great tribulation. So if the great tribulation was the first Jewish-Roman war, which resulted in the temple being destroyed, then that's also the time that the resurrection occurred.

It's not a future event. The resurrection of the dead occurred when? 70 AD. So the resurrection to the glorified bodies of the saints occurred in 70 AD? Yes. And so these people who are resurrected in glorified bodies in 70 AD, are they still on earth? No.

Where are they? They're in heaven. And is Jesus going to come back in the future at all?

No. And so he's not going to come back, and then what's going to happen? He already did.

No, I get what you say. So he's not going to come back in the future, and so what's going to happen? Is just the earth going to become a paradise or get bad or what?

I believe in a form of post-millennialism. I think that the gospel will, well it says right in Revelation 21, the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into the new heavens and the new earth, the kingdom of God. So I think over time, yes, the gospel will take precedence in the world and we will have eventually a gospel peace, yes. And so when that happens, which I totally disagree with, but when that happens, according to you, so the people who are alive on the earth and when they die, what happens to them, the Christians? If they're saved, they go to heaven. If they're not saved, they go to the lake of fire. And are they resurrected and glorified bodies at that point, or do they go up as spirits? Yes, at the moment of physical, biological death, you receive your glorified body, yes.

Oh, you're transformed into a glorified body right there. Okay, so when it says in Acts 1, 9-11 that Jesus will return the same way he went up, it means he's not going to return the same way he went up, right? It says in like manner.

Yeah, in the like manner of going up into the sky, he's going to return from the sky, right? And the emphasis, and we've already covered this, the emphasis was on the cloud. That was the emphasis. That was the purpose.

That was the point. And that he would come on the clouds of heaven. So I can give you the verses.

Well, hold on. So you're telling me then when he went up into the clouds and the angels said, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus who was taken away from heaven will come in just the same way as you watch him go into heaven.

That's actually N-E-S-B. It means that he's not going to return that way, right? He did return on the clouds, absolutely. You mean the water vapor clouds?

Water vapor? However you want to define it. He came on the clouds of heaven. He came in judgment. That's what it signified, coming in judgment. So the clouds that he came back in, was it the water vapor kind of cloud that we're talking about? I'm just being very specific.

Is that how he came back in 70 A.D.? Is it? Yes.

Okay. So, and then it also says in 1 Thessalonians 4 that we'll be caught up together in the clouds to be with him forever. It doesn't say we, it says they, who it was written to. It doesn't say we? It says we to the people it was written to. It wasn't written to us today in 2023.

It was written to them in the first century. You're reading somebody else's mail. Okay. So then, so when it says a day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, which is what that is, and then when it says that's when the new heavens and new earth will be made and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, that means what again? The elements destroyed with intense heat, what does that mean? The end of the old covenant system and the ushering in of the new covenant system.

Okay. So the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat. And the earth and its works will be burned up.

That really means that the earth and its works will not be burned up and the elements will not be destroyed with intense heat. It's all figurative, right? It's not a wooden interpretation, correct. Well it's not a, you know, a liquid interpretation either that you've got.

So say wooden or wood, it's ridiculous to say that. So when we read it, it doesn't mean what it says. It means something else, which you've said it means, but you can't show us what it means.

It means what it says if you contextualize it, not what you think it means. How do you know you're not doing that? Because when I read what it says right there, it seems clear, and then you're the one that goes all over the place. Because I'm harmonizing 2 Peter 3 with the rest of scripture.

That's why. In your mind. In your mind.

In your mind. Okay. Because what I see you doing is ripping things out of context and ignoring what they say in order to submit it to a false doctrine called preterism. I haven't written anything out of context. Yes you have. Didn't you hear the ripping sounds?

I've heard them all over the place. I haven't written anything out of context. Man, I heard ripping stuff out of context. Every time you quote something.

You couldn't argue. Way out of a wet paper bag, buddy. This is what it says. It says the roar. I asked you a simple. You'll pass it with a roar. I asked you a simple. What's a roar?

I asked you a simple question. What's the roar mean? What's the roar mean? What's the word roar mean?

What does it mean? The roar. Heavens will pass with a roar. The trumpet. Humongous sound.

What does that mean? The trumpet. But it doesn't say trumpet. It doesn't say that. There's seven trumpets and the last trumpet is the resurrection. The roar is different word.

Dude, do your homework. You keep misrepresenting the scriptures. I have. No, you haven't. I have.

No, you remind me of a cultist. Have you read Daniel Chesterton? Yes, I've read it all.

Have you read Daniel Chesterton? I've read it all. Okay. Goodbye. We're going to move on. You can just argue so much. It's like arguing against a wall.

It's ridiculous. Let's get to Jeff from Iowa. Jeff, welcome. You're on the air. Hi, Matt.

It's me again. Hey. What do you got, man? How are you doing? Doing all right. Hanging in there. What's up?

I'm doing all right. I just wanted to go over, I mean, what you said last week on the post show thing about Mary. Because, I mean, I was just looking into it, and, I mean, I wanted to see what your ideas were on that. Go over it again. I mean, just basically, I mean, you only have five more minutes, but.

Yeah. And, incidentally, I will be speaking online at a ministry, I'll have to put it up on the calendar, on Mary tomorrow. I'll be speaking on it tomorrow. And there's going to be Reverend Anthony Rogers, and I'll be speaking, Dr. Edward Delcore will be there, and then it looks like I'm going to be cross-examined by a Roman Catholic on the issue of Mary, which I am absolutely looking forward to.

Oh, I'm looking forward to it. But I'll just say it now, and I'll say it again, then, that what the Roman Catholic Church does with Mary is turn her into a functioning goddess, okay? It's idolatry. They're idolaters. Okay?

Right. And some of your issues were with, I mean, if she's not God, how does she, you know, hear all prayers or whatever? The issue with that is that she, or Catholics would say that she is somehow granted that power by God, so what is the issue with that? Show me in scripture where that's the case. Just to say, God just grants her an ability, well, what if they said Mary's everywhere all the time? Well, God can do it if he wants to. It's the same kind of logic.

Well, really, I guess it's true then, isn't it? Because you said God can do it if he wants to, so therefore that means it happens, so therefore it's true, so that means we can pray to her. See the idiocy of that kind of logic? Because it's idiocy. The Bible says don't exceed what's written, 1 Corinthians 4.6.

Don't exceed what's written. What they're doing is arguing from silence. Well, God can do whatever he wants, and we know what he wants, and he wants Mary to have that ability, so therefore she has the ability. It's ridiculous. Okay? Right, and well, how I saw a phrase is that Mary's will is perfectly aligned with God's. It is? How do you know? Yeah, so? Where does it say that in the Bible?

That's what they said. I don't know. I didn't dig that deep into it. Yeah, I know, but see, they'll say this stuff, and I'll say, show me that in the scriptures, and they'll say, well, we don't just believe the Bible.

I go, gotcha. Exactly. That's why you believe this other stuff. As long as you take your eyes off of the word of God, you'll believe anything. Maybe Mary's an alien from Venus next. It doesn't say she couldn't, and if God wanted her to be an alien from Venus, then she could be an alien from Venus. Okay, so let's say that somewhere in the Bible, let's say that somewhere in the Bible it was quoted like Jesus was like, yeah, actually, you know, when Mary's up in heaven, she'll be able to communicate with everybody through prayer, then you would accept that Mary would be able to communicate with everybody in prayer. Yeah, because if it said it, then it would be true, right? But it's not saying it, okay?

And plus there's logic issues. You have a human nature, by definition, you can only be at one place at one time, and you cannot simultaneously comprehend a million conversations all at once. You can't do it. I can't do it.

Our brains are not able to do anything like that. It's not possible, because our nature doesn't permit it, but suddenly when Mary, she now can. And what the Catholics say, well, if God wants to do what he can, he can make her do it. This is their argument. It's not in the Bible.

Well, wasn't there, okay, I'm not trying to argue with you on this, but I saw this. There's something, I think it's like revelation of like saints offering prayers to God or something. Yeah, Revelation 5, 8, and 13. Uh-huh. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So what are your thoughts on that? Let's read it. When he had taken the book, this is Revelation 5, 8, when he had taken the book, the four living creatures, and what are the four living creatures, I'll ask them. And the 24 elders, and I'll say, what are the 24 elders? Well, we're not exactly sure.

Oh, okay. Fell down before the lamb. Well, we know the lamb is Jesus, we got that.

Each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. See, that means they can hear him in heaven. What? Where does it say that? It doesn't say that at all.

But this is what they do. They're so desperate to find something in scripture that now all of a sudden it just means they can hear. Okay? Okay. So I can get into verse 13, but we're out of time. Stay in the after show if you want, we'll talk about it a little bit more, okay? Okay, Emily. All right.

Hey, folks, we are out of time. May the Lord bless you by His grace. We'll be back on the air on Monday. Hope you have a great weekend. And if you want to hear the post show, just go to mattslick.com, slash, oh, no, I mean, karma.org, slash radio. Join us after show another program powered by the truth network.